Soundproof wall against neighbor's heat pump

However, there is a big difference between being obligated to purchase local heat and certain house types ([Doppelhaushälfte]) having to share a heating system.

I would like district heating. But as far as I know, it is only available in Flensburg. We do not live in Flensburg. So that’s out. Otherwise, I don’t see the heating situation like 11 did. Objectively, he is right. But subjectively, I say paragraph one, everyone has their own. Karsten

But there is a big difference between being obliged to purchase local heat and certain house types (semi-detached houses) having to share a heating system.

Nope, socio-politically we have to stop simply burning or wasting fossil fuels or resources. And use the existing resources more efficiently.

Nobody wants, for example, nuclear power, so it has to be renewables. But nobody wants power lines, biogas plants, or wind turbines near their own property.

also chose gas because it is the cheapest way for him to heat his place.

Good for him; but socio-politically it is not really the right way to successfully implement the energy transition.

I also see the urbanization of agricultural and green spaces critically. Of course, everyone wants their house with a garden. But soil sealing is significantly greater than if modern urban development is practiced.

sometimes you say things that literally overflow with ignorance in the posts and jump right at you

I couldn't have said it better:

Who then owns the system? Who is responsible for maintenance and renewal? There are also people who want a semi-detached house but no homeowner association....

It belongs precisely to the special purpose association of its operators and users. This can be set up as a (not necessarily registered) association or as a cooperative—just as examples. Community property at the installation site is not necessary for this.

This is more decentralized than a connection to a facility for an entire district—not only administratively closer to the user. But also because energy saving has to do with avoiding transmission losses. In this respect, it makes sense to choose the concentration level of the combined consumers so that a favorable operating point is "only" just reached—in a district system it is already exceeded and weakened in overall efficiency by transmission losses. Furthermore, you can also opt: neighbor on the left with energy carrier X, neighbor on the right with energy carrier Y. In this sense

But there is a big difference between being obliged to take district heating or whether certain house types (semi-detached house) have to share a heating system.

it makes a difference whether you receive district heating from 2 km away, or local heat from 20 m away from the left or right.

Therefore: even though the tone could be friendlier, thank you for your input for clarification.

ok, differently asked: Why do two houses have to share one heating system just because they have a common wall (semi-detached house)? And in contrast, two houses that are 6 meters apart (single-family houses) do not have to. Overall, I agree with you, but the special treatment of one type of house is ridiculous.

ok, asked differently:
Why do two houses have to share one heating system just because they have a common wall (semi-detached house)?
And in contrast, two houses that stand 6 meters apart (detached houses) don't have to.

On a societal level, I agree with you, but the special treatment of one type of house is just ridiculous.

a) because this close proximity makes it predestined.

b) in connection with the "special treatment of one type of house" regarding the common boundary distance, that is not disproportionate (?)

And: somewhere you just have to start to get the fur wet if you want to wash.